Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 68 Cal. App. 725 - Jacobs v. Jacobs

68 Cal. App. 725 - Jacobs v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis

1924

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
4
states following
October 2004
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2004 · most notably 16 Cal. 2d 190 - Prouty v. Prouty (1940), Fleming v. Fleming (1937)

28 state decisions

110192419301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Lamborn v. Lamborn · Ex parte Gordan · Hagle v. Hagle · 35 Cal. App. 646 - Broad v. Broad · 42 Cal. App. 567 - Lisenbee v. Lisenbee

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The [husband's] only argument ... is that the [divorce] decree had become final prior to the time the motion [for attorneys' fees] was heard and that there was, therefore, no divorce action pending. From this it is argued that the court was without power to award counsel fees to [the wife].... The precise point has been ruled on adversely to [the husband] in Lamborn v. Lamborn [, supra,] 190 Cal. 794 , 214 P. 862 ..., where the supreme court held that because of the power to modify orders relating to alimony[,] a divorce case was deemed to be pending after the time for appeal had expired so that the court had jurisdiction to allow the wife counsel fees to resist a motion for modification of the alimony order and to prosecute an appeal from an order reducing her alimony.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.